Dynamic Governance of Multi-LLM Agent Systems for Collaborative Conversational Outcomes
arXiv AIArchived Aug 13, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.11207v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When two LLM agents with structurally opposed objectives interact across multiple turns, the absence of a shared goal function produces not competition but collapse: the visitor capitulates, the site agent stops varying its approach, and the conversation terminates without achieving either agent's stated objective. This paper asks whether a control-theoretic governance layer can substitute for that missing goal function. The Experience Orchestrator
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 25 Apr 2026]
Dynamic Governance of Multi-LLM Agent Systems for Collaborative Conversational Outcomes
Alexander Liss, Nicholas Desmond, Santiago Gil Gallego
When two LLM agents with structurally opposed objectives interact across multiple turns, the absence of a shared goal function produces not competition but collapse: the visitor capitulates, the site agent stops varying its approach, and the conversation terminates without achieving either agent's stated objective. This paper asks whether a control-theoretic governance layer can substitute for that missing goal function. The Experience Orchestrator (EO) addresses this in a simulated financial services environment where a site agent guides a visitor toward advisor contact while the visitor maintains psychologically realistic resistance. EO governs the joint trajectory through three mechanisms: a Contextual Bandit (CB) that selects content arms calibrated from real-world web analytics, a PID controller that enforces behavioral consistency via dynamic schema constraints, and a POMDP belief tracker that maintains a probabilistic model of visitor intent. Across 60,000 simulations, EO achieves a +32 percentage point lift in high-intent advisor contact rate (78.1% vs. 46.1% over a naive LLM control), with CB variant selection accounting for 97% of between-factor outcome variance -- confirming that the governance policy, not environmental initial conditions, determines where trajectories end up. Persona-level analysis reveals two distinct regimes: for visitors with no natural inclination toward conversion, the governance layer is the difference between a functional system and a non-functional one; for visitors already near alignment, a naive LLM's empathetic defaults are largely sufficient. All findings are conditional on LLM-to-LLM simulation. The PID controller has not been calibrated against real human unpredictability, and validating EO on live traffic is the critical next step.
Comments: 13 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables. Submitted to AI Engineer World's Fair 2026
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.11207 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.11207v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.11207
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Alexander Liss [view email]
[v1] Sat, 25 Apr 2026 21:47:25 UTC (179 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)